HoUinger Corp. 

pH 8.5 



.03 




Copy 1 


AMERICA'S 




BEST DEFENSE 




Proposed Program 




for the United States 




BY 

WALTER W. DAVIS 




It is the duty of every citizen of a Democracy 
to endeavo«r to discover the best policy for the 
Nation. 

This duty performed, coupled with Universal 
Military Training so directed as to put an end to 
war, is the best defense a country can have. 








THE WRITERS' PUBLISHING CO., Incorporated 




20 VESEY STREET, NEW YORK 




1916 



IN THIS PAMPHLET I HAVE BROUGHT TOGETHER 
TWO SHORT PAPERS DEALING WITH AMERICA'S BEST 
DEFENSE, IN VIEW OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMPLI- 
CATIONS WITH WHICH OUR GOVERNMENT IS BESET. I 
HAVE TRIED TO SET FORTH A NATIONAL POLICY ON 
WHICH ALL AMERICANS, WITHOUT REGARD TO PO- 
LITICAL OR OTHER AFFILIATIONS, CAN UNITE TO DIS- 
CUSS THE ISSUES CALMLY AND WITH DUE REGARD 
TO PRECEDENT. THE PLAN OFFERS A POLICY TO 
MEET THE INTERNATIONAL QUESTIONS THAT ARE 
ARISING. 

I HAVE TRIED ALSO TO SUGGEST BROADER AND 
MORE USEFUL LINES UPON WHICH THE FABRIC OF 
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS CAN BE WOVEN IN 
TIMES OF PEACE. 

THIS MAY SEEM AMBITIOUS, BUT IT IS NOT MORE 
THAN ALL CITIZENS SHOULD ATTEMPT IF DEMOC- 
RACIES ARE TO ENDURE. 

AN EXPRESSION OF YOUR OPINION ON THE IDEAS 
HEREIN SET FORTH WOULD BE GREATLY APPRE- 
CIATED..-.^ : 

•••"* WALTER W. DAVIS, 

IJ28 Broadway, New York City. 



2 



SUGGESTED PROGRAM FOR THE 
UNITED STATES 



If the United States is to be drawn into the War, let it be in 
keeping with the following propositions : 

I. The United States should Create the Issue: 
and not permit a foreign power to choose the issue. 
II. The United States should choose the time. 
III. The United States should so conduct its dip- 
lomatic moves as to give to the world a sense of our 
earnestness and firmness, backed by a united Cabinet 
and country. 

The only manner in which these principles can be carried out 
is by the adoption of a constructive plan or policy toward the w^iole 
world, and for the benefit of the whole world, like the abolition of 
slavery, or American Independence. Such an issue we would make ; 
and such an issue we would fight for, if necessary, in our own good 
time. Without such an issue, the United States may be, indeed is 
being, drawn into the existing War. The conflict so far bears no 
promise of going to other than to the mightiest in armament and 
the mightiest in endurance; after which the old process of outbuild- 
ing the old and inventing new armaments is to be repeated. In such 
a contest the United States will take no part, voluntarily ; and the 
only way to prevent being drawn in is by adopting a constructive 
policy of its own, which will for the world end or limit all such 
war and for which alone it will fight. 

Thus, if the United States is to enter either side of a world 
war, it will not be in a controversy over a question of fact. It will 
not be over a question of International Law whose very wisdom is 
reasonably in dispute and which we ourselves may desire changed 
after the War. It will not be for conquest nor for a fruitless or 
selfish victory. The victory must be for Mankind. The general 
disposition of the fruits of victory and the terms of peace must first 

3 



be understood, and they must be worth the cost. Thus, if we 
enter the contest on the side of the AlHes, and if the AIHes win 
all the waterways surrounding Europe, we must know what the dis- 
position of such waterways is to be ; not for the material aggrandize- 
ment of the United States, but for the good of the Human Race. 
We must know whether victory is to be followed by a premedi- 
tated design to extend the armaments of the world — increasing the 
size of guns, the power of explosives, the size of dreadnoughts, the 
craftiness and treachery of espionage, and the extension of subma- 
rine and aerial warfare. 

We must know whether the educational and inventive genius of 
the world is monopolized to extend these things or to be used to 
limit and end them. 

Such a constructive policy as that herein proposed need not ig- 
nore or evade a single question that is now presented affecting the 
welfare of our citizens. IVe zvould repudiate the violation of Inter- 
national Lazv from the invasion of Belgium to the sinking of the 
Lusitania and the attack on the Sussex. But we would go further 
than merely asking apology and reparation for individual incidents 
of that character. We would demand a guaranty from the victor in 
this War that the very means or tools of such warfare be forever 
abolished. We would recognize that the building and the use to the 
extreme limit of the submarine, of the siege gun, of the aerial war 
craft, of the spy system, is on principle in harmony with the building 
of the superdreadnought, and is the logical outcome thereof. If the 
rights of neutrals and non-combatants have been violated in the use 
of the newer and more refined and deadly modes of warfare, never- 
theless the extent to which International Law has heretofore gone in 
protecting non-combatants has been to require that the non-combat- 
ant shall be protected to the maximum degree consistent with the 
use of the engine in question. Whereas, as has been pointed 
out by President Wilson in the case of the submarine, the United 
States is ready ;to demand that this protection shall now extend to 
the prohibition of its use. 

And if it can be shown that the use of the submarine is incon- 
sistent with the interests and safety of neutrals and non-combatants, 
so can it be shown that all deadly engines of warfare — indeed war- 
fare itself — is likewise inconsistent.* 

* Prof. John Bassett Moore, the author of "Moore's International Law," 
has stated that "there is no rule for the rights of belligerents which, if car- 
ried to its ultimate logical consequences, will not wipe out the rights of 
neutrals." 

4 



The United States, therefore, having refrained from any inter- 
ference in a quarrel not its own, now that it is threatened with being 
drawn into the conflict, it should not be deemed officious if we 
should inquire as to the attitude of the belligerents on the ques- 
tions herein propounded. The United States, therefore, should first 
inquire of England (since England is the nation with the largest 
armament on whose side we threaten to become engaged) what her 
attitude is to be at the end of this War, on the several questions 
involved in a consideration of the problem of Universal Peace. 
This inquiry would be made simultaneously with and without affect- 
ing our pending conversations with Germany and England on spe- 
cial incidents. 

Our attitude, e.g., on the Lusitania, would remain unchanged. 
But although our final decision of friendship toward Germany would 
be determined largely by Germany's replies, our decision as to en- 
gaging in the War should Germany prove unfriendly would depend 
largely on England's reply to our inquiry. The note to England 
would, at all events, cover the following points : * 

1. Limitation of armament for each nation to its 
own uses for police purposes. 

2. Neutrality of all extra-territorial waterways. 

3. Right of any people unified or segregated by 
race, custom or language to determine its allegiance. 

4. The organization of a tribunal under the con- 
trol of the nations of the world, for the settlement of 
international disputes. 

5. Provision for an army and navy under the con- 
trol of such a tribunal for the enforcement of its decrees. 

6. Amendment of International Law in harmony 
with the foregoing. 

7. Organization of an International Senate in 
which all nations would be represented for the enact- 
ment and amendment of International Law. 

This note would ask for a reply "in principle" on the points 
touched upon. 

* These are illustrative only of a principle — the object being to draw 
from England her views leading to the most practical method for preventing 
war. One of the best plans for this purpose is probably that outlined by 
"The League to Enforce Peace."' 

5 



If the reply of England were prompt, courteous and friendly, 
and calculated to promote the success of the plan, the United States 
would make like suggestions to Germany. If the answer of Ger- 
many were equally prompt and encouraging it cannot be denied 
that further negotiations would undoubtedly soon overwhelm the 
more petty controversies now so seriously threatening the peace of 
this country. 

If the answer of England, however, were dilatory, evasive or 
unfavorable, or seemed to indicate the impracticability of the plan 
at this time, then the policy of the United States would be to caution 
our people against traveling under the English flag and, possibly, 
to limit commerce with England. 

Then would the Administration, as well as the entire American 
people, support such a policy. That is to say, the United States 
would refuse to be drawn into the War as an ally of England, and 
were Germany sufificiently tractable there would be a possibility 
that much aid and comfort might be given Germany by the United 
States. 

On the other hand, if a favorable reply should come from Eng- 
land, and an unfavorable reply from Germany, and the latter con- 
tinued her present policy of encroachment on the rights of neutral 
nations, there is a strong probability that the United States would 
be drawn into the conflict on the side of England. This would be, 
however, only after defining the issue, and the time for action, and 
with the approval of a thoroughly united country, acting with an 
earnestness and firmness unequaled in any past conflict. 



Character of the Proposed Note to England 

The proposed note to England would appeal to her in the most 
friendly and cordial way, in full confidence that she would see our 
point of view and be in full accord with our proposals. 

We would not suggest an immediate peace for the existing War. 
On the contrary, we would recognize the great wrong perpetrated 
against the whole world by the invasion of Belgium and point out 
that a peace without fully rectifying that wrong is not to be desired. 

We would reaffirm our desire to be and remain neutral, and to 
observe International Law, and assist in preserving the rights of 

3 



neutrals; but we would carefully compile and chronicle the leading 
instances in this war where International Law has been gradually 
encroached upon by both sides, until the rights of neutrals have been 
infringed to such an extent as not only to seriously injure their 
welfare but to threaten their peace. Thus we are required for our 
own welfare, as well as for the future peace of the entire world, 
to make certain suggestions leading, as we hope, with the aid of 
England, to the elimination of such warfare in the future. This 
brings us to the necessity of pointing out certain conditions preced- 
ing this War, and growing out of it, all of which are apparent to 
every candid observer. 

We would show that although the existing War may not seem 
to present a well defined issue equally recogn'zed by both sides ; and 
although there may be a claim by the aggressor that it entered the 
War purely on the defensive, it must be taken as self-evident that the 
real aggressor is, after all, engaged in this War either through fear of 
the power of its opponent or for territorial or other material advan- 
tage. Believing, therefore, that such a war must grow out of one 
or the other of these two things, and knowing that England, as she 
has more than once intimated, is not in this contest for personal 
relative gain, we, also, will refrain from complaining of the viola- 
tion of the rights of our nation, or of our citizens, and along with 
England herself will we base our suggestions on the common good 
of all men, whether they be English, German, American, or of other 
nationality. Consistently with this determination it will be our duty 
to concern ourselves with the Welfare of Men, wherever we may find 
them. Whether they be in the trenches on the battlefront; on the 
high seas ; or in the home. Whether they be of one or another of 
the belligerent nations, or of a neutral nation. It was in this con- 
cern for mankind that our nation was created ; but such is, never- 
theless, the just concern of all nations. Heretofore it has been 
considered the province of each nation to safeguard only the inter- 
ests of its own citizens. But modern science and invention have 
so annihilated distance and time, and have so interwoven the rela- 
tions of mankind, that more and more has the injury to any one 
nation become the concern of all nations. W^e have vivid examples 
of the truth of this in both Great Britain and the United States : 
the one nation with its dominions extending into all regions, and 
over all sorts and conditions of men ; and the other with a population 
one-third foreign stock — a stock about equally divided between the 
warring sides in Europe. 

7 



We would point out the startling growth in aerial, submarine 
and other kinds of implements of modern warfare, and the utter in- 
adequacy of International Law as it now exists to define appropri- 
ate limits to their use. The result is a growing disrespect for Inter- 
national Law, and an attempt to force on the world rules more con- 
sistent with the use of the modern war implements. 

We would point out the two principal methods by which Inter- 
national Law is, in ordinary course, to be amended to meet the 
changing conditions of the world; viz.: 

By Force of Arms ; and 

By Treaty. 

Amendment of International Law "By Force of Arms" usually 
means the extension of the right to arm. Amendment of Interna- 
tional Law "By Treaty" usually tends to the limitation of the right 
to use "Force of Arms." 

We would point out two alternative natural effects of the pres- 
ent War : 

1. To extend and permit the use of the submarine, of aerial 
craft, of poisonous gases, of high explosives, of crafty and treacher- 
ous espionage, not only in their present deadly forms, but in the 
more refined and terrible growths which the genius of science can 
perfect ; 

2. To limit not only these newer products of genius, but also all 
kinds of armament. 

We would point out the necessity for the civilized nations of 
the world uniting in seeing to it that of these two alternatives, the 
latter be the one chosen, unless we are willing to invite a practical 
destruction of the best of the race.* 

We would emphasize the necessity of fully recognizing these 
two alternatives, and we would present the point of view of Ger- 
many, who, however wrongfully she may have entered into the pres- 
ent War, has nevertheless perfected the newer forms of armament 
to an extraordinary degree, only to surpass the armaments of the 
types which have heretofore existed. Her reasoning was that 
the armament of England compelled her to arm, and that (barring 
ordinary policing purposes) there is no virtue in any nation's having 



* Sir Edward Grey, the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, 
was quoted in the New York Times of May 14, 1916, as follows: "If the 
world cannot organize against war , if war must go on, then all the nations 
can protect themselves henceforth only by using whatever destructive 
agencies they can invent, till the resources and inventions of science end by 
destroying the humanity they were meant to preserve." 



an armament unless that nation has the largest. From her point 
of view, she is playing the role of Petruchio to England's Katherine 
in the world-drama. And we would point out the inconsistency 
of asking Germany to disarm, unless the other nations did like- 
wise. 

If it be contended that the character of the submarine, for 
example, is incompatible with giving legal notice and opportunity for 
safety to non-combatants, we must not forget that the rule requiring 
giving notice is based on the theory that notice may be given without 
danger or detriment to the attacking party. In other words, the 
attacking ship, whether submarine or dreadnought, is relieved of 
the obligation to give notice if the captive is about to resist, 
or attempts to flee, or in any other manner jeopardizes the safety 
or success of the attack. Now the universal use of the wireless by 
all large craft, whether neutral or belligerent, whether armed or un- 
armed, at once renders the giving of notice dangerous to all attack- 
ing ships, whether submarine or other, unless the attacking 
party so dominates the arena that an alarm cannot possibly endanger 
it For this very reason, the writer, who was in London at the time, 
pointed out to his companions as early as August, 1914, the probable 
extreme danger at that time in taking passage on an English ship 
for America. And the danger was not based on an expectation that 
there would be submarine interference or that a German man-of-war 
would seek to attack, but on the probability that an alarm from our 
wireless would so endanger some German surface craft that it might 
feel constrained to attack in self-defense and without notice. Thus 
it is that the rules which Germany crudely attempted to comply with 
by the expedient of a war zone and a prior to sailing notice are to 
be revised. Indeed, in the use of aerial craft and submarine mines, 
neither side appears at present to be restrained by any rules of Inter- 
national Law. The necessity of the revision of International Law 
undoubtedly is conceded by all. The question is whether this revi- 
sion shall be in the interest of extending the rights of neutrals, or 
whether it shall be in the interest of extending the rights of 
belligerents. It is not a question of the mere form of the armament. 

We would, therefore, point out that the time has arrived when 
all nations must arm — each endeavoring to outdo every other; or 
all nations must agree to limit their armaments. If England were 
willing to agree in principle to our suggestions, we would stand ready 
to use our good offices with the other nations to induce them to join 
in the plan ; and if we were unsuccessful, and are ourselves ever 

9 



to be compelled to arm, we can conceive of no cause more worthy 
to champion than a just plan for disarmament.* 

We would present our contentions to England as a friend to a 
friend, but with the same vigor with which our protest was pre- 
sented to Germany against the sinking of the Lusitania, ever recog- 
nizing the fact that it is armament which is the foundation cause of 
the present trouble. The fact that Germany has grossly violated In- 
ternational Law, we would not permit to divert us from this view, 
bearing in mind that the proper punishment should be visited by an 
International Court and not by a single nation. And, if necessary, 
we would point out that the world has now reached a state where 
it is unsafe and wrong for the family of nations to allow to a 
single nation the power to visit even a just punishment on another 
nation. 

We would, in conclusion, so frankly present our contentions 
as to require definite and prompt answer, that we might know what 
our policy is to be as to extending our own armament. As we have 
said to Germany that we cannot alter our attitude because of any- 
thing England may have done, neither would we permit the issue 
with England to be afifected by the invasion of Belgium, the 
sinking of the Lusitania, the attacks on other liners, or any other 
wrong on the part of Germany. And although we may be convinced 
that England's attitude toward her own colonies is no longer what 
it once was toward the United States, but protective and benevolent, 
yet we will not forget that even England, though possibly more tact- 
ful than Germany has been in the present War, is inclined to be, 
if she so wills, indifferent to the interests of neutrals and non-com- 
batants. And we have only to look at the proceedings of the Second 
Hague Conference, as late as 1907, to see that England voted against 
Germany and the United States upon the American proposal of Im- 
munity of Private Property at Sea. (See Article by Professor 
Kuno Francke, Economic League Quarterly for May, 191 5.) 

It is claimed, however, that England's attitude toward the 
smaller nations of the world has changed. If so, the public sym- 
pathy which she enjoys is justified and she will encourage and help 
our proposals. If not, we should revise our opinion of her, as we 
have within a year revised our opinion of Germany. But we can 
rely on England's far-sighted tact to see to it that she does not lose 

* "I can imagine the American people arming universally to put an end 
to war. I cannot imagine them doing it to defend themselves against a 
possible and remote danger." — Prof. John Dewey, of Columbia, in The New 
Republic, April 29, 1916. 

10 

% 



! 

I 



our sympathy and good opinion in this struggle ; especially in dealing 
with a question involving nothing commercial or of peculiar mate- 
rial individual interest to the United States. For with the loss of 
American good opinion on the issues proposed England would lose 
also that of every other neutral nation, as well as that of her colonies. 
Whereas, if the issue were presented with the proper skill, and Eng- 
land accorded with the view of humanity, she would win certainly 
the unanimous good-will of America and the neutral world ; and 
also that usually described as the "German-American" sentiment, 
as well as the favorable opinion of those international fraternities 
that, as Mr. August Schvan has pointed out, see that their own 
interests bind them together more strongly than does any flag. 

Someone has said that a proposal of disarmament is too "Uto- 
pian," and another that it would be regarded as a "joke" by the bel- 
ligerent nations. If so, let us add to the joke (for the nation that re- 
gards it as a joke) — the loss of American Public Sentiment — with 
the consequent loss of prestige — and the throwing of our military 
and economic power and resources against her in peace and in war. 
The proposal of disarmament is no more a joke than the statement 
of Mr. Asquith, that England is fighting "to fulfill a solemn interna- 
tional obligation — to vindicate the principle that small nationalities 
are not to be crushed in defiance of international good faith." It 
is no more Utopian than were the protestations in favor of hu- 
manity on the part of each of the several belligerents when they 
entered this war. In this proposition we are only taking these na- 
tions at their word. The plan for disarmament would be a joke 
were it not backed by the determination to compel disarmament by 
force, which Roosevelt styles the "Posse Comitatus of the Nations." 
No originality is claimed for the plan — no idea that the United States 
is better than any other nation is involved — only that the plan is 
just, and possesses the proper "sanction" which Professor Wilson 
of Harvard says is necessary to give to world peace efifectiveness 
and permanency. 



11 



Hollinger C 
pH 8.5 



